Moradi v. Pimentel Private Security 5/7/02 CA3

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » California » Court of Appeal » 2002 » Moradi v. Pimentel Private Security 5/7/02 CA3

State: California

Court: 1st District Court of Appeal 1st District Court of Appeal

Docket No: C037101

Case Date: 08/15/2002

Preview:Filed 5/7/02

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (San Joaquin) ----

ODETTE MORADI, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. PIMENTEL PRIVATE SECURITY et al., Defendants and Respondents.

C037101 (Super. Ct. No. CV002078)

In Bardin v. Lockheed Aeronautical Systems Co. (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 494 (Bardin), the Second District Court of Appeal held that an employer enjoys absolute immunity from civil liability for the disclosure of confidential information to a law enforcement agency during a background investigation. Plaintiff Odette Moradi, whose dream had been to become a correctional officer, was rejected by the Department of Corrections based on information supplied by her former employer, Pimentel Private Security (Pimentel). Bardin is "bad law" and urges us to reject it. She claims

1

We conclude that Bardin is not the culprit; Government Code section 1031.1, subdivision (b) is.1 As Bardin acknowledges, (Bardin, supra,

subdivision (b) is internally inconsistent. 70 Cal.App.4th at pp. 501-502.)

We agree with the court in

Bardin that, saddled with an irreconcilable conflict in the terms of the statute, we must rely on the broader context in which it appears and the intent of the Legislature in passing the statute. (Id. at p. 502.) We affirm the summary judgment

granted the employer based on its absolute immunity for the various tort causes of action. FACTS The underlying facts, disputed or not, are irrelevant to the disposition of this appeal. Suffice it to say, Moradi

worked as a private security guard for Pimentel for 16 months in 1993 and 1994. Before leaving Pimentel, she submitted an

application to become a correctional officer with the Department of Corrections (Department). After conducting an extensive

background investigation, including a review of her personnel file and interviews with her superiors at Pimentel, the Department rejected her application. Her tenure at Pimentel,

though short, was marred with accusations of misconduct, tardiness, unreliability, emotional instability, inappropriate behavior, and failure to follow orders and company policies. Her employer contends she was terminated; she claims she

1

All further statutory references are to the Government Code unless otherwise indicated. 2

resigned following the breakup of her relationship with the owner's son. DISCUSSION In 1993 the Legislature enacted section 1031.1 to help law enforcement agencies obtain information about potential peace officers during background investigations. "It is the intent of

the Legislature that law enforcement have access to pertinent information about peace officer applicants in order to ensure that qualified individuals with good moral character are selected." (Stats. 1993, ch. 135,

Download Moradi v. Pimentel Private Security 5/7/02 CA3.pdf